[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <56F3A9DE-C80A-4932-AFEA-BB82251C1199@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 02:00:18 +0200
From: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@...il.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>,
Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Ariel Elior <aelior@...vell.com>,
Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>,
Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>,
Martin Habets <habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Casper Andersson <casper.casan@...il.com>,
Bjarni Jonasson <bjarni.jonasson@...rochip.com>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...el.com>,
Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Di Zhu <zhudi21@...wei.com>, Xu Wang <vulab@...as.ac.cn>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Brian Johannesmeyer <bjohannesmeyer@...il.com>,
Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@...nl>,
"Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@...nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 03/15] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Replace usage of
found with dedicated iterator
> On 9. Apr 2022, at 01:50, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2022 at 01:44:00AM +0200, Jakob Koschel wrote:
>>> Let's try to not make convoluted code worse. Do the following 2 patches
>>> achieve what you are looking for? Originally I had a single patch (what
>>> is now 2/2) but I figured it would be cleaner to break out the unrelated
>>> change into what is now 1/2.
>>
>> I do agree with not making convoluted code worse, but I was reluctant with
>> e.g. introducing new functions for this because others essentially
>> have the opposite opinion on this.
>>
>> I however like solving it that way, it makes it a lot cleaner.
>
> Yeah, I think 'just adapt to the context and style and intentions of the
> code you're changing and don't try to push a robotic one-size-fits-all
> solution' is sensible enough for an initial guiding principle.
>
>>> If you want I can submit these changes separately.
>>
>> Sure if you want to submit them separately, go ahead. Otherwise I can
>> integrate it into a v2, whatever you prefer essentially.
>
> If you're moving quickly feel free to pick them up. I have lots of other
> things on my backlog so it won't be until late next week until I even
> consider submitting these.
I'm planning to send a v2 earlier than that, so I'll just integrate it there.
Thanks,
Jakob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists